The metric was carefully crafted by a group of experts as means of communicating a complicated topic.
I'm not going to discuss it further if you don't have anything substantial to bring to the table.
'experts' lmao. Your entire argument boils down to an appeal to authority fallacy.
That fallacy does not apply here as the authority is legitimate and relevant.
That's just your opinion, not fact.
Eric Cartman is that you?
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017
by NamlchakKhandro on Sunday October 18, 2026 @08:49AM
(#50140652)
I.e., an appeal to authority
That line of reasoning ... everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it.
Seriously - appeal to authority is a fallacy, unless it's an appeal to an authority that I happen to agree with? It's hard to take you seriously.
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017
by true_religion on Sunday October 18, 2026 @05:08PM
(#50145500)
Instead of repeating that they are legitimate, you would've gotten further by saying Human Rights Watch has been around for X years, has reported competently on Y matters even when suppression was attempted by Z country. Their membership is made of A, B, C and this is why you should trust in their data collection as a source that we can use in casual discussion.
Right now, you're basically asking people to trust Human Rights Watch because you trust them. But if people don't trust you, why would they trust your word on what sources are legitimized?
If they actually said something, it would be much less effective.
> We're not talking about a few % difference here.
How may freedom percent is it again? Do you lose 1% or 20% for failing to allow foreign ownership of utilities? How many percent do you gain for stopping Russian misinformation?